I was troubled by Grace Blakeley's accusation that I am working to:
make the existing capitalist system work more effectively, rather than .... effect a systematic redistribution of wealth and power
So, I asked ChatGPT:
Is Richard Murphy's work aimed at preserving capitalism by making it work better?
This is the answer I got, unedited:
Richard Murphy's work is aimed at preserving society — not preserving capitalism.
But because we currently have a capitalist-dominated economy, much of his work focuses on reshaping it so that it serves democratic and social goals rather than the other way around.
Here's the nuance:
What Murphy does argue
He argues that:
-
Markets can be useful where competition delivers real value.
-
Private enterprise has a role in innovation and productive activity.
-
Money and the state must work together, and public investment is essential for shared prosperity.
-
Tax justice, regulation, and democratic accountability are required to curb exploitation.
In this sense, yes, he engages with the existing framework and proposes reforms that would make economic life fairer, more stable, and less extractive.
What he explicitly rejects:
-
Capitalism as a system that concentrates wealth and power in a tiny elite.
-
The notion that markets alone can organise society.
-
A rentier economy that extracts income without creating value.
-
Any economic model blind to ecological limits and human well-being.
He is not defending capitalism's current structure — he is challenging its foundational priorities: profit before care, property before people, extraction before sustainability.
So which is it?
A concise answer:
His work keeps what works in markets but seeks to replace what doesn't — especially the power structures and rent-seeking behaviours at the heart of contemporary capitalism.
Murphy's framework — the Politics of Care, economic democracy, public financial systems, ending rentier control — is closer to a social, democratic, and ecological transformation than a patch for neoliberal capitalism.
He's not trying to save capitalism from itself.
He's trying to save people from capitalism — and if markets survive in a subordinate role, so be it.
I think that's fair. I will be curious to see what Gace Blakely has to say, if she accepts my invitation to comment, as I hope she will.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I am surprised and even disappointed that you have asked this question?
Your answer is OK though, but I will add this.
Much of Western thought has at its base the identification of things, ordering them, classifying them, pointing out differences, looking for uniqueness. In the East, they do the same, but tend to look for similarities, links, synergies between stuff?
Politics here therefore in the West is frequently about polarization – separation. Public versus private for example equals black and white – but we know it is more complicated than that; there are many shades of grey.
All you have ever done is sought to improve a capitalism shorn of its morality and subtleties. Because you recognised (perhaps) that at one time – whilst not perfect – it did not work too badly but also there were a lot of lies.
More importantly however, you are aligned with Marx’s observation that capitalism has the capacity to destroy itself and drag everyone down with it, and all you are doing is trying to help it not to. Because you realise that the consequences are huge. And they are. Change is a risky business. An so is poor accounting, of which there is much!
Money must be circulated in the economy (not ideology) – your exploration of quantum theory supports that. All you are saying is that markets (capitalism) and the government should do that; not markets alone, because they are imbued with human weakness such as greed – people like Adam Smith and Frederic Bastiat knew this as much as Karl Marx.
‘Hope that helps.
Thanks
Couldn’t agree with PSR more, Richard. In any case use of ‘effectively’ is, I suspect, a sly jibe. Given that you and most of your readers are realists, and therefore don’t subscribe to the view that some kind of revolution is going to deliver a socialist utopia, what you undoubtedly try to do is to shape a form of capitalism (that you frequently refer to as a ‘mixed economy),. which replaces neoliberalism, and then operates effectively to provide all those things people require to enjoy a “good life”. They are too numerous to mention here, but you know what they are. And the replacement of neoliberalism would destroy the rentier economy and all the parasites that fed off it, of course. I could say much more but you get my drift.
Thanks, and this turned up very late. Sorry!
https://x.com/buzhna/status/1995460648780624160?s=46
So?
How can you agree with Grace when she calls those supporting MMT enemies of the working class?
And how can you defend her suggestion that eduction on MMT – which could liberate the working class – is not required as it would undermine class struggle?
Let’s address the real nonsense – or threats, including to the working class whom she seems to hold in contempt – she’s saying.
Hi Richard.
DeepSeek agrees with you and Chatgpt.
“ In essence, Richard Murphy’s work is a comprehensive argument against fiscal timidity. He provides a theoretical framework and practical policy roadmap for using the full power of sovereign currency to tackle society’s biggest challenges.”
I would be interested to see Grace’s response.
Thanks
I will be surprised if she answers any of your original (perfectly fair) questions in your previous blog post. The struggle is all that matters comrade! (sarcasm)
Richard
See Grace’s latest substack – a response to her followers to your
comments on her/the left and MMT
https://graceblakeley.substack.com/p/on-mmt
Tells me all I need to know about where she stands.
I will be responding but because of other work, maybe not until the morning.
Addressing one area I know a bit about – renewables – there is a phrase “price discovery” which we regularly use. How do you know that a given bit of kit, wind turbine, wind farm, solar farm etc – is priced “corretly”. We have found that auctions usually deliver prices that match +/- the current price to buy the equipment, build the wind/solar farm & cover costs/get a modest return. Most auctions have a couple of players, usually tearing lumps out of each other to try and win. Other areas of the energy system lack such “competition”. But that is another story. The gatekeepers in this area are governments who, for the most part act as honest brokers. Other gatekeepers include: supermarket chains, on-line mega co such as Amazon etc. For the most part they seem to act as unregulated/unsupervised gatekeepers – with the results that we can see around us.
Hopefully the above confirms what RM rejects. It is also a reflection on the role of gov’ and how it is increasingly absent from some markets, both goods and services.
Much to agree with
How exactly do ‘Socialists’ propose to run the economy then
Will (almost) everything be run by the state?
What roles will markets in particular financial ones play?
They seem to be criticising you but without saying what they propose to do
You just hit the nail on the head
The plan seems to be revolution first, then we will work out what to do
It has a poor track record
The trouble with socialism is not, as Margaret Thatcher said, that you run out of other people’s money.
It’s that central planning uses input-output analysis, linear programming, and matrix algebra to replicate the neo-classical approach to deciding what to produce, how to produce, and for whom.
A matrix is just a set of simultaneous equations by another name.
Simultaneous equations are the stuff of neo-classical economics.
But the workability of the neo-classical system depends on assumptions that can’t exist in the real world, including the assumption that utility is cardinally measurable. If it isn’t, then indifference curves don’t work.
Similar to voting for change,and ending out that what Labour meant was for change for the worse after having 14 years to prepare.
To be honest, I think, having read her Substack, this woman is not open to arguement.
You have given two excellent posts on the subject, maybe you have more important issues to address? I am hoping that this issue hasn’t upset you.
It has
I don’t like being told I am the enemy by someone planning “class struggle”. It feels very violent to me.
Responding to Mr petek”s point:
“central planning” (and equations). That was tested to destruction in the USSR. Indeed, ICL the old Brit computer firm sold plenty of computers to the USSR to help them “make the system work”. Which of course it didn’t & couldn’t (A.Innes, Late Soviet Britain).
Fun fact, the ICL moscow operation was +/- a branch of MI6 (of course). I knew one of the guys there, albeit in a later incarnation/under a later cover in a different place.
There’s some quite thorough proposals for democratic socialist alternatives using market structures (agreeing, on this point, that central planning isn’t the best way to run something as inordinately complicated as a national economy).
My primary recommendation in this order is Tom Winters’ fabulous book ‘The Cooperative State’, which charts out a case for full employee ownership, and what actionable steps can be taken by a democratically elected government to get there. It’s very thorough, but primarily looks at the fundamental laws of market economies and how they apply to cooperatives, with the benefits (work satisfaction, efficiency, innovation) that come to them. Disproves counterarguments like Ward’s rubbish. Very good.
I’m surprised at this tbh. I’m usually a fan of Grace’s views, but I feel you are being unfairly tarnished. I’m speculating that a possible reason could be that some other MMT ‘experts’ I’ve seen (I’m thinking of some Americans associated with the Democrats) do seem to tie it to the existing forms of capitalism we have today and come across as trying to preserve the status quo to a fair extent. And Grace has wrongly pigeonholed you in this camp. Overall, there does seem to be a lot of confusion about MMT in general.
Not a fan – She’s yet another ‘left’ economist who’s highly dismissive of MMT. These people are simply clueless.
This is happening in the Greens where some seem to be importing the ‘all or nothing’ approach, either from the ‘class war’ side or the ‘eco and no politics’ purists. Polanski is too mainstream for the first and not pure enough for the second.
Changing a system by increments is far better than smashing it to pieces and starting again. We have the means to improve our current economy and make it more egalitarian. If it all comes crashing down, then who knows what will arise from the rubble to take advantage of the chaos. This is why I am not a Leftist, only Left-leaning. It is an ideology, like the Far Right, and is therefore open to abuse and cognitive bias. The rich are the enemy, nd therefore we can’t do anything until we have defeated them. It’s a great story, but it doesn’t yet have a decent third act, let alone a conclusion. Many of the current voices on the Left need to read End Times by Peter Turchin. They need to see that they are counter-elites, looking to carve out their own power in a system they are locked out of, much like Farage. These power struggles always lead to collapse. America is one exception; between the 1920s and 1940’s they managed to change their economy and politics enough to stave off societal collapse. I hope we can do the same.
I find this whole “you’re trying to preserve the current system” critique truly bizarre and hypocritical. Surely by ignoring MMT, which is simply a description of what money is and how it works; but one that makes it quite clear that government comes first and private sector comes second, she is preserving the damaging neoliberal myth/implication that private wealth is the “natural order” and the government steps in to rearrange this. This is the most pernicious and stubborn neoliberal/capitalist “truth”, that by rejecting the alternative too, she is clearly in my opinion the one helping in “preserving the current system”.
It’s like someone trying to argue the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa, yet accepting the “truth” given by the other side that the earth is the centre of the Universe. Accepting the second “truth” means you will never succeed in your first argument no matter how righteous you may be.
I suspect we will not get answers, but the lack of answers is, in itself significant, and does not let the Novara crowd et al off the hook.
The next key task in politics looks like keeping the Green Party in shape (safe from entryism from the right and left and identity politics) so it can exert significant influence to make the world a better place and stop Reform.
FTF isn’t a party. It is more like an ideas/arguments/questions generator – an informal think tank (but rooted in real life by its contributors). You, Richard, get hauled backwards and forwards by the rest of us, AND by the trolls. How you cope, I don’t know.
But, given the growth in audience, you/we are becoming a significant but unrecognised force, not just in the world of global tax reform, a massive achievement) but in shifting UK opinion on political economy and promoting a politics of care.
So where is the energy needed most, right here, right now?
Getting Titanic (Labour) to change course? Good luck with that!
Discrediting Reform?(difficult, they dont have any economic policies) but they do need discrediting, atevery opportunity.
Destroying the household analogy & taxation myths in the understanding of as many movers and shakers and footsoldiers as possible?
Saving the Green Party from ideological idolatry, particularly Marxism and identity politics now that it is making electoral headway?
Which of these tasks is:
a) the most important
and
b) within our skill-set and influence-range?
That may take a few coffees, and birding trips to work out. I wish I knew the answers.
I am working on them
I hope you can work on such ideas. After seeing the potential spat developing yesterday, I was literally awake in the night thinking of the perennial problem besetting the left – arguing amongst ourselves. The Labour Party is dead in the water, acting as if still in the early twentieth century. The Greens come forward looking to a new way of thinking that could enable the birth of a different sort of economy. But if it gets bogged down into separatist cliques then all that will happen is fascism will creep in behind our backs. That will then potentially provoke a violent uprising, which will not have a good outcome.
Much to agree with
I hope we get more exchanges between Richard Murphy and Grace Blakeley. I find them very enlightening (speaking as someone who thinks understanding MMT is very important even though I don’t understand the nuances of the theory and do tend to follow the last intelligent person in the room in full moronic sheep mode).
What, like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmTahAali90
🙂
Exactly!
It’s an annoying tendency, especially since the sort of transformation that makes a (democratic) market socialist alternative actually politically possible comes from a broader coalition of people who can reject the logic of neo-liberal capitalism and its complete disregard for human life and dignity. But I guess shooting ourselves in the foot is a long-running leftist tradition :c
Brought to the blog through Blakeley’s email and don’t pretend to understand this stuff. What I’d like an answer to is: in a possible world where a successful political project in the UK adopted an MMT analysis and policy platform, who would lose out (i.e. whose interests are not served by a government that pursues MMT)? If the losers are corporations, financiers, the wealthy and other countries, what kinds of action would they take to disrupt such an MMT project. And if they pursue those actions, what kinds of resources, economic and social power etc. would be needed to resist that backlash. Happy to be pointed to existing work on these questions.
You’re asking the right thing: if we change how the economy is run, who loses and how might they react?
First, what would an MMT-informed policy programme actually do? It would recognise that the UK government, as the issuer of the pound, can always fund the services and investment we need. Real constraints are the availability of people, skills and natural resources – not the balance on a government spreadsheet. The task becomes managing economic activity to deliver full employment, rapid decarbonisation and social well-being, while using tax to prevent inflation and tackle inequality.
So who loses?
• Those whose power comes from artificial scarcity. The wealthy who have benefitted from the false claim that “there is no money left” lose the ability to say public services must be cut so their own taxes can remain low.
• Financial institutions who profit from government dependence on the bond markets lose a lucrative rent-extracting role.
• Corporate monopolists who rely on a weak state to keep wages down and regulation light would see their model challenged.
Put bluntly, what is lost is unaccountable power. That is why these interests would resist. Not because they fear economic collapse, but because they fear democracy working.
What might that backlash look like? We have seen it before: threats of capital flight; media panic about “runaway inflation”; bond market pressure; downgrades from ratings agencies; coordinated lobbying to intimidate politicians. The tools are narrative weapons, not economic fundamentals.
And how do we resist?
First, by being clear and confident about how the economy truly works.
Second, by building strong democratic institutions that regulate finance and protect workers’ rights.
Third, by ensuring the public see tangible benefits quickly – secure jobs, warmer homes, better services.
In other words, the best defence is delivering for the majority. That is what those who currently hold power fear most.
World history of the last 150 years has shown that unfettered capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, always benefits the elite 5%. The remaining 95% are always treated as expendable cannon fodder.
Capitalism is not “perfect”. But properly regulated for the benefit of the 95%, capitalism can produce a fairer, more just society.
May I just register my profound disagreement. The influence of socialism, and the egalitarianism of the post war returnees, gave us the golden decades, the remnant being what’s left of the NHS. Capital needs a strong bridle to be useful.
I agree with the last.
But was it socialism, or social democracy?
The two most important political influences on that post war period were Beveridge in shaping the welfare state, and Keynes in how to pay for it. Two Liberals. Then the Attlee government who took those ideas and put it all in place. Plus those who came back from fighting the war together, with more egalitarian views.
I didn’t know this Grace Blakeney, so I asked my AI bot (Proton):
“What is the political and economic philosophy of Grace Blakeney?”
and “Lumo” gave forth as a final para:
” . . . Grace Blakeley envisions a society where political power and economic resources are democratically controlled, the financial sector is reined in, and climate action is integrated into a broader socialist transformation. This blend of political and economic ideas positions her firmly within contemporary left‑wing, anti‑neoliberal discourse.”
Sounds pretty much what Richard espouses, at least on my reading of it over the last few months. Maybe it’s just schism for schism’s sake, a la “Your Party”.
It is all a bit weird. The British government state that the left and right have nothing to offer but grievance. Well MMT says that this government has nothing to offer either. It dances to the tune of a piper and as George Monbiot writes, that is to the tune of multinational corporations who sue the government for “lost business revenues”. The corporations know the government has the money to give them. As do we. Ignoring it, seems wrong to me. It seems businesses should be awarded according to the products and services they have offer. Instead all they seem to want is a day in court and a payment in their favour. How about another type of day in court that ends in a gaol.
Thank you PSR and many others for insightful and supportive words.
Mr Murphy, you are promoting Politics of Care; a social, democratic and ecological transformation. AI has summarised neatly. You investigate, you will change your mind when reason prompts, but you never cease to call out the problems of current system and thoughtfully construct new thinking and practical steps to transform things for a better tomorrow.
I want change, not destruction, not one ism in place of another. I’ve started on Abby Innes’s Late Soviet Britain – a timely book. The parallels are chilling, echoing Mr Petek above I think. A mixed economy with flourishing politics of care sounds good. Markets are older than Marxism, but need regulating, especially when not small and local.
Can we have a new Murphy’s Law? ‘No matter how badly things have gone wrong, with good will and rational analysis, positive change is always possible’.
I like that
I asked Richards question of the Windows AI assistant, Copilot. It gave me the same answer, It also cited Piketty and Mazzucato’s work and gave me a comparison. The three themes are pertinent.
Murphy: Pragmatic reformer, using fiscal tools to protect society.
Piketty: Diagnostician of capitalism’s inequality engine, calling for systemic redistribution.
Mazzucato: Visionary innovator, urging governments to reshape capitalism around collective missions.
Together, they represent three complementary strands of critique: Murphy (society-first fiscal reform), Piketty (inequality diagnosis), Mazzucato (innovation transformation).
Out of interest I asked it which gave the most accurate account of how money works in the domestic economy, neoliberalism or MMT. It came down firmly on the side of MMT.
Thanks
Thank you for doing that. Great summary!
As an anarchist who wants to replace capitalism with something as close to socialism as possible – socialism, not state communism -that aĺlows for markets, but not for the pursuit of profit above all else, I I welcome MMT as a way to make capitalism irrelevant. If a government can always outspend you, there is no point in being a billionaire. If a givernment can always outspend you to provide for its people, there is no point trying to exploit them for your own gain.
We had markets for a long time before capitalism. We know that works, especially when we’re dealing with strangers. Capitalism wants us to treat everyone as strangers. MMT, properly used, can help us go back to treating everyone as a friend.
I think the problem people have is that MMT isn’t in itself political. It can be used to enrich the alteady wealthy. As we saw with PPE contracts and QE.
QE was and is opposed by MMT.
It is not in any way the same thing.
MMT did not enrich people as a result.
I stand corrected.
Might it be possible to differentiate capitalism into two contrasting types?
1) Anti-social capitalism which involves the placing of money where it is expected to gain the most money for an individual or group, irrespective of general social consequences
2) Pro-social capitalism which involves the placing of money where it is expected to gain the most benefit for society generally
You could
Or you could just split it between what fair markets populated by smallish companies deliver and rentierism, or extractive and absuive, monopolostic, rigged captilism delivers
It’s not hard.
I’d describe No.2 as “mutual capitalism” and I think that is what Richard’s “politics of care” would actually lead to
I asked DeepSeek how you and Grace could best work together towards a fairer society in the UK. It thought that a strategic collaboration would be very effective. I won’t include its full response which you could reproduce if interested but here is the conclusion:
“Conclusion: A “Think Tank & Do Tank” Alliance
The most effective model would be for them to co-found or lead a joint initiative—a “Think Tank & Do Tank.”
· The “Think Tank” (Murphy-led): produces the ironclad policy blueprints.
· The “Do Tank” (Blakeley-led): builds the political force and public demand to implement them.
By combining Murphy’s mastery of the system’s rules with Blakeley’s power to rewrite the political rulebook, they could create a formidable engine for change. Their collaboration would signal that the alternative to neoliberalism is not just protest, but a fully-formed, credible, and inspiring project for a fairer UK.”
Is this or something similar worth considering?… maybe have a word with Zack too?
Maybe the suggested mechanism wouldn’t be the way to do it, but I feel that you should both be on the same side and able to focus on what you agree on…
Why would I want to work with a person who calls me an enemy of the working class for proposing the policies with the greatest chance of delivering what they need?
She says I am an enemy in her class struggle. Candidly, I feel physically threatened, and why not? Her imagery on her substack is violent. How can I be sure her proposed response to those she deems enemies is not?
And why should I work with a person who appears to want to bring down democracy? What else is her class struggle about?
What’s the message of the picture in her substack of the baton-wielding cop at Orgreave?
Is she suggesting that is you? Feels like it.
That violent imagery in a post about you and in direct response to you, is totally unacceptable. She should know better. I imagine she has complained about the dangers of inflammatory language from politicians on the right. Well – that’s essentially as bad.
Having recently experienced a v personal attack over Gaza, accusing me of demonically influenced antisemitism, I can understand how personal this will feel for you. It is traumatic, and future discussion of class enemies will trigger you unexpectedly, just as reading right wing “Christian” stuff triggers me, in respect of the earlier direct personal attack on me.
I don’t see any obligation on you to reach out to them – my advice would be to self-protectively cut contact, given they have defined you as a class enemy. Maybe later the Greens will be asking to talk to you looking for help – which could be interesting.
You said:
“What’s the message of the picture in her substack of the baton-wielding cop at Orgreave? Is she suggesting that is you? Feels like it.”
It feels like that to me, and Jacqueline.
There is a last post on this in the morning, and then, as you suggest, I will be avoiding these people who want to threaten me, but much more importantly threaten democracy, the Green Party, and the working class.
I follow both Richard and Grace (and see merits in both sides) and did not regard the Orgreave pic as intended to be a personal jibe at Richard at all. Rather, it is, to my mind, the most vivid display of the willingness of proponents of capitalism to turn the considerable resources of the state violently to crush the workers’ political aspirations. This simply illustrates Grace’s point of being in a class war already, so that changing the narrative in favour of MMT is, by itself, insufficient in the face of the ruthless capitalist power we know will be wielded against it and against any changes to the status quo it might make possible,
I would add, in support of aspects of Richard’s position, that winning the class war would also be insufficient on its own if the financial paradigm does not shift towards one that can promote and maintain democracy and equality (e.g, MMT).
The debate has been interesting, but it would be good if you guys could bury the hatchet and find a patch of common ground to work together on.
There is no common ground between democrats and those who want to overthrow it. Why is that so hard to work out?
There are several pretty good posts from folk commenting on Grace Blakely’s substack (there are 138 in all so I have not read them all). In one Grace herself says this:
“Push back against austerity arguments? Absolutely – I’ve been doing so my whole career!
Force people to sit down a listen to an economics class about monetary financing? I don’t think so – few would listen, and many of those who did wouldn’t understand. It’s just not a solid foundation for a mass political movement.”
The concluding sentence doesn’t make any sense. A “mass political movement” requires leadership and one with the capability of forming a political economic programme which provides the basis for building such a mass movement. A “mass political movement” is not going to emerge spontaneously. Understanding how modern monetary systems function is essential as the foundation for a transformative political and economic program. Whilst the “average person” in such a movement need not be fully conversant with this it is essential that the leadership is and that it provides a narrative that is clear and able to gain the trust of people.
The “struggle on the streets” that Grace envisages as the way to achieve popular power cannot gain critical mass without a coherent political economic prospectus. Confronting the forces of reaction on the streets without this is a recipe for defeat. People are angry and are being manipulated by fascist demagogues who offer simple and seemingly convincing solutions. As long as those “solutions” remain unchallenged the fascists will win the street battle.
Much to agree with.
But let me highlight this:
“Force people to sit down a listen to an economics class about monetary financing? I don’t think so – few would listen, and many of those who did wouldn’t understand. It’s just not a solid foundation for a mass political movement.”
One comment. How totally and utterly patronising. She is utterly contemptuous of working people. Of course she, with PPE Oxford can manage such a thing, but the working class? Poor dears. How could they do that? I am deeply unimpressed.
Grace Blakely responds:-
https://graceblakeley.substack.com/p/on-mmt
A great deal of word salad but I don’t see anything, for example, about why Chinese Marxists moved to market capitalism and in the process became a bunch of fascists!
I think you should reflect on those prejudiced comments after you read this study of the operations of the Peoples Bank of China in comparison with the central banks of the USA the UK and the ECB. The PBoC is a key financial institution in what is better described as “market socialism” than “market capitalism”, or alternatively, a central bank working as the central bank of a state directed mixed economy. That is the type of economy that has been advocated by Richard for many years on this blog and elsewhere.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/working-paper-431-Larsen-Jackson-1.pdf
Whilst we might not like China’s one party political system you have to be impressed with how they manage and direct their economy, despite mistakes they might make but which they quickly learn from. We have much to learn from them.
To describe them as “fascists” is a gross abuse of the term.
You need to read up on what has occurred and is occurring in China before you start being an apologist for this regime. I suggest at least three books “Unlikely Partners”, “Prisoner of the State”, and “Trade Wars are Class Wars.” You will discover that Marxism and Fascism are joined at the hip!
Off topic but the Like button counter does not seem to be working. I have liked lots of comments on this topic and related ones today but the counter is resolutely stuck at zero.
There is a fault with the plug in that drives it. We are trying to sort it. Sorry in the meantime.
One thing I have always admired about your approach to problems, Richard, is that your ideas and proposals always try to bridge the gap between ‘what isn’t working’ and ‘Utopia.’
It’s inspiring to think of how wonderful life would be if all our problems were gone, isn’t it? But getting to the point where problems ACTUALLY disappear requires understanding of what is causing and perpetuating the problems, then taking (or proposing) do-able actions to correct the situation.
Ideology on its own is useless.
I’m sorry she’s upset you. I really am.
I am not upset. I might be angry. They’re different. One looks inward, and the other outward.
In your blogs yesterday I was surprised you paid so much attention to the comments of Grace Blakely – who I had never heard of – when you are (admit it) often brusque with those who contradict you. Nevertheless it generated some really interesting discussion, so I am grateful.
And then today, I was casually browsing the local bookshop and discovered she had written a book about current economics. It was obvious why she is someone to take seriously. And the title of her book ought to be on your list of alternative names for neo-liberalism: Vulture Capitalism.
However the comment you attribute to her (from memory, “but what about the class war?”) suggests she is someone who hasn’t moved into the twentyfirst century. Another Corbyn. The twentieth century politics “class war” doesn’t exist in the same way now, even if Marx’s insights about the competing interests of capital and labour aren’t time limited.
Nevertheless there are the same unfairnesses which need correcting, and I appreciate the way you point them out in your blogs. The steepening wealth gradient. The privileging of rentiers over salary earners in taxation. And the political strength of the very very rich (who are completely different from the old “upper class”).
She did not invent the term vulture capitalism.
I have to be honest, I cannot see how the book added much to udnerstanding. But that’s my view. The ideas are not exactly original.
Having read the book what can you say other than being big in wearing her heart on her sleeve, there’s little in implementation detail! Accordingly it isn’t memorable. Even worse she now has the audacity to accuse Richard of being obsessed with technical detail. For me Richard’s technical detail has revealed how unscrupulous individuals and groups manipulate others.
You hit the nail on the head. As is so common in the left, all “it’s terrible” and no real answers. The left does campaigning, meetings, protests, petitions, clicktivism and “struggle” in the main, but what results? Nothing, because there is no substance to the demands. It’s all headless hearts. It is only detail that changes things. Technocracy from the left is required. I focus on solutions first that reason. Largely because so few do.
What puzzles me is what happens after the revolution? Won’t there be any need for ‘money’ and financial transactions? And if there are, won’t there be the need for an organising system …. and how would that system differ from the operations described by MMT? Or are we supposed to return to the fiction of bartering and tally sticks?
Oh Dear, I am sorry you have got into this dispute, as I respect both yo and Grace Blakely.
I have read (unlike some of the comentators above) most of Grace Blakeley’s comments and the difference is clear: she is a revolutionary (as am I) she is explicitly socialist (not social-democratic etc as ChatGPT says) – but she also accepts much of MMT.
My question to you would be: once (hopefully) we reach the stage when MMT is widely accepted, what political steps will need to be taken to make this a truly fair society?
Implied in my question: do you really think the extremely wealthy and powerful groups that have such influence over the system would quietly step aside?
Please answer a question first of all. What do you revolutionaries want to do with the wealthy and powerful? Grace identifies me as one of them, or at least as sided with them (utterly incorrecty). Tell me my fate before I try to answer your question, please. It’s personal, this one. And anyway, you must know.